The Saxon Shore Fort Network.

[sylla]

Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[caldrail]

I suspect the Saxon raiders were less concerned with social instability than getting rich quick, and since their tribal members were becoming a little migratory, one would expect fewer Saxons at home, especially since sea levels were rising, inundating their coastal settlements, and forcing aggressive behaviour with a view to profitable survival.

 

The Saxons allowed into Britain as settlers proved to be good citizens - the Romans describe them as such - and therefore show far less social instability than their avaricious continental cousins. Since the raiders on the Saxon Shore were effectively attacking their own countrymen as often as not, the question of social instability is a moot point and hardly indiciative of anything more significant than typical human larceny brought on by opportunity and intent.

Edited October 30, 2009 by caldrail

[Kosmo]

I would guess that "saxon" it's rather a generic name for Germanic raiders on the North Sea then an ethnic/tribal group. Some of the "saxons" could be anglii or jutii from today Denmark or people from Norway or Sweden.

[caldrail]

Agreed

[sylla]

Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[caldrail]

Perhaps, but then it was social instability (and rebellious leaders) that required the withdrawal of legions from Britain, and the Saxon threat (in the generic sense) was felt no less by northern Gauls, especially since they had no moat to ward off predatory advances. One of the reasons for the long term failure of the Saxon Shore defences was the lack of support from continental stations.

[sylla]

Our available evidence clearly shows that the Saxon Shore, the Hadrian's Wall and the whole British defensive system never ever "failed".

 

Britannia was just abandoned undefeated by Honorius, so he would be able to deal with other menaces; simple as that.

 

But that's just evidence; who cares?

[caldrail]

On the contrary, we assume it worked reliably, but when you consider the efforts required to ward off the Saxons were only succesful in two circumstances, the initiatives of Theodosius and the campaigns of Stilicho, the perspective of the defense changes considerably. The fact was that the Saxon Shore was ill-defended. Not entirely the fault of the Romans (it must have been extremely difficult to stop Saxon raiders nipping in and out), but perhaps more of a failure of resolute persistence to deal with an ongoing situation. In other words, the Roman defenders did not approach the problem with their usual relentless and overwhelming aggression. Partly because of geography, partly through irresolute leadership.

[sylla]

I was talking just about evidence, not post-historic analysis.

 

If you (or anyone else) have any evidence that the Saxon Shore ever failed (and if anyone cares about it) this would be a wonderful time for showing it.

[caldrail]

It didn't fail at any given time, it just never worked well at all. It required the efforts of the two individuals mentioned above for any notable success at alleviating the problem. After all, the entire point of the Saxon Shore was to ward off incursions, yet these incursions continued for centuries, and the defense in depth strategy of the late empire was designed to react to incursions after landing, not on the coastline itself.

 

There is some literary evidence from Roman writers. You can find some of it through the links on this site. I managed to find them. Other than that, post-historical analysis (with reference to archaeological evidence) fills the gap quite neatly.

[sylla]

Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Nephele]

One request that others back up their statements with evidence is enough. One needn't badger anyone in this thread or elsewhere on this board. We get it. Honestly.

 

-- Nephele